Routing in Adhoc

List of ad hoc routing protocolsFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An ad-hoc routing protocol is a convention, or standard, that controls how nodes decide which way

to route packets between computing devices in a mobile ad hoc network .

In ad-hoc networks, nodes are not familiar with the topology of their networks. Instead, they have to discover it.

The basic idea is that a new node may announce its presence and should listen for announcements broadcast

by its neighbors. Each node learns about nodes nearby and how to reach them, and may announce that it, too,

can reach them.

Note that in a wider sense, ad hoc protocol can also be used literally, that is, to mean an improvised and often

impromptu protocol established for a specific purpose.

The following is a list of some ad hoc network routing protocols.

Contents

  [hide] 

1     Pro-active (table-driven) routing   

2     Reactive (on-demand) routing   

3     Flow-oriented routing   

4     Hybrid (both pro-active and reactive) routing   

5     Hierarchical routing protocols   

6     Backpressure Routing   

7     Host Specific Routing protocols   

8     Power-aware routing protocols   

9     Multicast routing   

10      Geographical multicast protocols (Geocasting)   

11      On-Demand Data Delivery routing   

12      Other protocol classes   

13      External links   

[edit]Pro-active (table-driven) routing

This type of protocols maintains fresh lists of destinations and their routes by periodically distributing routing

tables throughout the network. The main disadvantages of such algorithms are:

1. Respective amount of data for maintenance.

2. Slow reaction on restructuring and failures.

Examples of pro-active algorithms are:

Babel, a protocol inspired by DSDV with faster convergence and ETX link quality estimation. Free

implementation available.

B.A.T.M.A.N. – Better approach to mobile adhoc networking. RFC Draft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-

wunderlich-openmesh-manet-routing-00 

DSDV (Highly Dynamic Destination-Sequenced Distance Vector routing protocol) – C. E. PERKINS, P.

BHAGWAT Highly Dynamic Destination-Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV) for Mobile Computers Proc.

of the SIGCOMM 1994 Conference on Communications Architectures, Protocols and Applications, Aug

1994, pp 234–244.

HSR (Hierarchical State Routing protocol) – Guangyu Pei and Mario Gerla and Xiaoyan Hong AND Ching-

Chuan Chiang, A Wireless Hierarchical Routing Protocol with Group Mobility, IEEE WCNC'99, New

Orleans, USA, September 1999. http://wiki.uni.lu/secan-lab/Hieracical+State+Routing.html 

HSLS The hazy-sighted link-state algorithm. This algorithm is based on empirical and theoretical studies to

limit link-state traffic while achieving practical link mobility. It avoids the message flooding of DSR, OLSR

and AODV by growing the range of the link-state updates twofold for each twofold expansion of time. It has

a practical large network in place at CuWIN.

IARP (Intrazone Routing Protocol/pro-active part of the ZRP) – ZYGMUNT J. HAAS, MARC R.

PEARLMAN, PRINCE SAMAR The Intrazone Routing Protocol (IARP) for Ad Hoc Networks, Internet

Draft, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-manet-zone-iarp , work in progress, July 2002.

Linked Cluster Architecture|LCA (Linked Cluster Architecture) – M. GERLA, J. T. TSAI Multicluster, Mobile,

Multimedia Radio Network ACM Wireless Networks, VOl 1, No.3, 1995, pp. 255–265

WAR (Witness Aided Routing) – Aron, I.D. and Gupta, S., 1999, “A Witness-Aided Routing Protocol for

Mobile Ad Hoc Networks with Unidirectional Links”, Proc. of the First International Conference on Mobile

Data Access, p. 24-33.

OLSR Optimized Link State Routing Protocol RFC 3626: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3626 

[edit]Reactive (on-demand) routing

This type of protocols finds a route on demand by flooding the network with Route Request packets. The main

disadvantages of such algorithms are:

1. High latency time in route finding.

2. Excessive flooding can lead to network clogging.

Examples of reactive algorithms are:

SENCAST – P. Appavoo and K. Khedo, SENCAST: A Scalable Protocol for Unicasting and Multicasting in

a Large Ad hoc Emergency Network, International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security,

Vol.8 No.2, February 2008

Reliable Ad hoc On-demand Distance Vector Routing Protocol – Sandhya Khurana, Neelima Gupta,

Nagender Aneja, http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/ICNICONSMCL.2006.183 

Ant-based Routing Algorithm for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks – Mesut Günes et al., ARA – the ant-colony

based routing algorithm for manets, In Stephan Olariu, editor, Proceedings of the 2002 ICPP Workshop on

Ad Hoc Networks (IWAHN 2002), pages 79–85, IEEE Computer Society Press, August

2002, http://www.adhoc-nets.de 

Admission Control enabled On demand Routing (ACOR) – N. Kettaf, A. Abouaissa, T. Vuduong and P.

Lorenz, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kettaf-manet-acor , July 2006, (Work in progress)]

Ariadne – Y. Chu, A. Perrig, D. Johnson, Ariadne: A Secure On-Demand Routing Protocol for Ad Hoc

Networks, Proc. ACM Conf. Mobile Computing and Networking (MobiCom),

2002.http://sparrow.ece.cmu.edu/~adrian/projects/secure-routing/ariadne.pdf 

Associativity-Based Routing – CHAI-KEONG TOH: A Novel Distributed Routing Protocol To Support Ad

hoc Mobile Computing, Proc. IEEE 15th Annual International Phoenix Conference on Computers and

Communications, IEEE IPCCC 1996, 27 March-29, Phoenix, AZ, USA, pp. 480–486 / CHAI-KEONG TOH:

Long-lived Ad Hoc Routing based on the Concept of Associativity, Internet Draft, March 1999,

Expired, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-manet-longlived-adhoc-routing  – US PATENT

5,987,011 http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5987011.html 

Ad hoc On-demand Distance Vector(AODV) – C. PERKINS, E.ROYER AND S. DAS Ad hoc On-demand

Distance Vector (AODV) Routing, RFC 3561

Ad hoc On-demand Routing Protocol (AORP) – A. Reeve: Resilient Real-time Communications Across

Meshed Networks Under Adverse Conditions, Proc. 1st SEAS DTC Technical Conference,

2006, http://www.seasdtc.com/downloads/pdf/conf_material_06/communications_and_control/cc001.pdf 

Ad hoc On-demand Multipath Distance Vector – M. Marina, S. Das: On-demand Multipath Distance Vector

Routing in Ad Hoc Networks, Proceedings of the 2001 IEEE International Conference on Network

Protocols (ICNP), pages 14–23, IEEE Computer Society Press, 2001.

Backup Source Routing – SONG GUO, OLIVER W. YANG Performance of Backup Source Routing (BSR)

in mobile ad hoc networks p 440-444, Proc. 2002 IEEE Wireless Networking Conference

Dynamic Source Routing – DAVID JOHNSON, DAVID MALTZ, YIH-CHUN HU: The Dynamic Source

Routing Protocol for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks for IPv4, RFC 4728 / DAVID B. JOHNSON, DAVID A.

MALTZ: Dynamic Source Routing in Ad Hoc Wireless Networks, Mobile Computing, Thomasz Imielinski

and Hank Korth (Editors), Vol. 353, Chapter 5, pp. 153–181, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1996

Flow State in the Dynamic Source Routing – YIH-CHUN HU, DAVID B. JOHNSON, DAVID A. MALTZ

Flow State in the Dynamic Source Routing Protocol Internet Draft,http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-manet-

dsrflow , work in progress, June 2001.

Dynamic NIx-Vector Routing – Young J. Lee and George F. Riley, Dynamic NIx-Vector Routing for Mobile

Ad Hoc Networks. Proceedings of the IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference

(WCNC 2005), New Orleans, Mar. 13 – 17, 2005.

DYnamic Manet On-demand Routing – I. Chakeres AND C. Perkins: Dynamic MANET On-demand

Routing Protocol (DYMO), Internet Draft, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-manet-dymo , work in progress,

June 2008. RFC 4728

Endaira: It is on demand source routing protocol and it is designed to address the hidden channel attack in

ariadne.

[edit]Flow-oriented routing

This type of protocols finds a route on demand by following present flows. One option is to unicast

consecutively when forwarding data while promoting a new link. The main disadvantages of such algorithms

are:

1. Takes long time when exploring new routes without a prior knowledge.

2. May refer to entitative existing traffic to compensate for missing knowledge on routes.

Examples of flow oriented algorithms are:

FR and PR, E. Gafni, D. Bertsekas: Distributed Algorithms for Generating Loop-free Routes in Networks

with Frequently Changing Topology, IEEE Transactions on Communication, Vol. 29, No. 1, Jan, 1981,

pp.11–15. - The first Link Reversal Routing (LRR) algorithms.

IERP (Interzone Routing Protocol/reactive part of the ZRP) – ZYGMUNT J. HAAS, MARC R. PEARLMAN,

PRINCE SAMAR The Interzone Routing Protocol (IERP) for Ad Hoc Networks, Internet

Draft, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-manet-zone-ierp , work in progress, July 2002.

LUNAR (Lightweight Underlay Network Ad hoc Routing) – CHRISTIAN TSCHUDIN AND RICHARD GOLD

Lightweight Underlay Network Ad hoc Routing (LUNAR),http://cn.cs.unibas.ch/projects/lunar/ 

RDMAR (Relative-Distance Micro-discovery Ad hoc Routing protocol) – G. AGGELOU, R. TAFAZOLLI

Relative Distance Micro-discovery Ad Hoc Routing (RDMAR) protocol Internet

Draft,http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-manet-rdmar , work in progress, September 1999.

SSR (Signal Stability Routing protocol) – R. DUBE, C. D. RAIS, K. WANG, AND S. K. TRIPATHI Signal

Stability based adaptive routing (SSR alt SSA) for ad hoc mobile networks, IEEE Personal

Communication, Feb. 1997.

[edit]Hybrid (both pro-active and reactive) routing

This type of protocols combines the advantages of proactive and of reactive routing. The routing is initially

established with some proactively prospected routes and then serves the demand from additionally activated

nodes through reactive flooding. The choice for one or the other method requires predetermination for typical

cases. The main disadvantages of such algorithms are:

1. Advantage depends on number of Mathavan nodes activated.

2. Reaction to traffic demand depends on gradient of traffic volume.

Examples of hybrid algorithms are:

HRPLS (Hybrid Routing Protocol for Large Scale Mobile Ad Hoc Networks with Mobile Backbones)

– Ashish Pandey, Md. Nasir Ahmed, Nilesh Kumar, P. Gupta: A Hybrid Routing Scheme for Mobile Ad Hoc

Networks with Mobile Backbones, IEEE International Conference on High Performance Computing, HIPC

2006, pp. 411–423, Dec 2006.

HWMP (Hybrid Wireless Mesh Protocol) – default mandatory routing protocol for 802.11s. HWMP is

inspired by a combination of AODV (RFC 3561[2] ) and tree-based proactive routing. Guenael Strutt:

HWMP Specification Update. The Working Group for WLAN Standards of the Institute of Electrical and

Electronics Engineers. 14 November 2006 [1] 

ZRP (Zone Routing Protocol) – ZYGMUNT J. HAAS, MARC R. PEARLMAN, PRINCE SAMAR The Zone

Routing Protocol (ZRP) for Ad Hoc Networks, Internet Draft, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-manet-zone-

zrp , work in progress, July 2002. ZRP uses IARP as pro-active and IERP as reactive component.

[edit]Hierarchical routing protocols

With this type of protocols the choice of proactive and of reactive routing depends on the hierarchic level where

a node resides. The routing is initially established with some proactively prospected routes and then serves the

demand from additionally activated nodes through reactive flooding on the lower levels. The choice for one or

the other method requires proper attributation for respective levels. The main disadvantages of such algorithms

are:

1. Advantage depends on depth of nesting and addressing scheme.

2. Reaction to traffic demand depends on meshing parameters.

Examples of hierarchical routing algorithms are:

CBRP (Cluster Based Routing Protocol) – M. JIANG, J. LI, Y. C. TAY Cluster Based Routing Protocol

(CBRP) Functional Specification Internet Draft, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-manet-cbrp-spec , work in

progress, June 1999.

CEDAR (Core Extraction Distributed Ad hoc Routing) – RAGHUPATHY SIVAKUMAR, PRASUN SINHA,

VADUVUR BHARGHAVAN Core Extraction Distributed Ad hoc Routing (CEDAR) Specification, Internet

Draft, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-manet-cedar-spec ; PRASUN SINHA, RAGHUPATHY

SIVAKUMAR, VADUVUR BHARGHAVAN CEDAR: A Core-Extraction Distributed Ad Hoc Routing

Algorithm, The 18th Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies,

INFOCOM '99 New York, NY, USA, pp. 202–209 IEEE, March 1999

FSR (Fisheye State Routing protocol) – MARIO GERLA, GUANGYU PEI, XIAOYAN HONG, TSU-WEI

CHEN Fisheye State Routing Protocol (FSR) for Ad Hoc Networks Internet

Draft,http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-manet-fsr , work in progress, June

2001. (see http://wiki.uni.lu/secan-lab/Fisheye+State+Routing.html )

[edit]Backpressure Routing

This type of routing does not pre-compute paths. It chooses next-hops dynamically as a packet is in progress

toward its destination. These decisions are based on congestion gradients of neighbor nodes. When this type

of routing is used together with max-weight link scheduling, the algorithm is throughput-optimal. See further

discussion here: Backpressure Routing.

[edit]Host Specific Routing protocols

This type of protocols requires thorough administration to tailor the routing to a certain network layout and a

distinct flow strategy. The main disadvantages of such algorithms are:

1. Advantage depends on quality of administration addressing scheme.

2. Proper reaction to changes in topology demands reconsidering all parametrizing.

LANMAR (Landmark Routing Protocol for Large Scale Networks) – MARIO GERLA, XIAOYAN HONG, LI

MA, GUANGYU PEI Landmark Routing Protocol (LANMAR) Internet Draft,http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-

ietf-manet-lanmar-05 , work in progress, June 2001.

[edit]Power-aware routing protocols

Energy required to transmit a signal is approximately proportional to d , where d is the distance and   

is the attenuation factor or path loss exponent, which depends on the transmission medium. When   

(which is the optimal case), transmitting a signal half the distance requires one fourth of the energy and if there

is a node in the middle willing to spend another fourth of its energy for the second half, data would be

transmitted for half of the energy than through a direct transmission – a fact that follows directly from

the inverse square law of physics.

The main disadvantages of such algorithms are:

1. This method induces a delay for each transmission.

2. No relevance for energy network powered transmission operated via sufficient repeater infrastructure.

[edit]Multicast routing

MRMP (Maximum-Residual Multicast Protocol) – Pi-Cheng Hsiu and Tei-Wei Kuo: "A Maximum-Residual

Multicast Protocol for Large-Scale Mobile Ad Hoc Networks", IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing,

2009 Available from: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=4796204 

EraMobile (Epidemic-based Reliable and Adaptive Multicast) – Zulkuf Genc and Oznur Ozkasap:

"EraMobile: Epidemic-based Reliable and Adaptive Multicast for MANETs", In Proc. of the Wireless

Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC), Hong Kong, China, March 2007. Available

from: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?

isnumber=4224245&arnumber=4225046&count=810&index=800 

PUMA (Protocol for Unified Multicasting Through Announcements) – Vaishampayan, Ravindra. and

Garcia-Luna-Aceves, J.J.: " Efficient and Robust Multicast Routing in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks", In 2004

IEEE International Conference on Mobile Ad hoc and Sensor Systems, pages 304- 313, Fort Lauderdale,

FL, October 2004. Available from: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=1392169 . A

NS-2 implementation by Sidney Doria is available in: <http://puma-adhoc.cvs.sourceforge.net/puma-

adhoc/Puma/ >.

AMRIS (Ad hoc Multicast Routing protocol utilizing Increasing id-numberS) – Chun Wei Wu and Yong

Chiang Tay: "AMRIS: A Multicast Protocol for Ad Hoc Wireless Networks", In Proc. of the IEEE Military

Communications Conference (MILCOM), pages 25 – 29, Atlantic City, NJ, November 1999.

LAM (Lightweight Adaptive Multicast) – Lusheng Ji and M. Scott Corson: "A Lightweight Adaptive Multicast

Algorithm", In Proc. of the IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference (Globecom), pages 1036–1042,

Sydney, Australia, November 1998.

[edit]Geographical multicast protocols (Geocasting)

MOBICAST (Mobile Just-in-time Multicasting) – Q. Huang, C. Lu and G-C. Roman, Mobicast: Just-in-time

multicast for sensor networks under spatiotemporal constraints, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol

2634, pages 442–457

Abiding Geocast / Stored Geocast (Time Stable Geocasting) – C. Maihöfer, T. Leinmüller, E. Schoch:

Abiding Geocast: Time-Stable Geocast for Ad Hoc Networks, Second ACM International Workshop on

Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks (VANET 2005), Cologne, Germany, September 2, 2005

[edit]On-Demand Data Delivery routing

MAODDP (Mobile Ad-hoc On-Demand Data Delivery Protocol) - H.Bakht: Theory of Centralization for

Routing in Mobile Ad-hoc Network, Annals Computer Science Series, 9th Tomb, 2nd Fasc,2011

[edit]Other protocol classes

IMEP (Internet Manet Encapsulation Protocol) – M. S. CORSON, S. PAPADEMETRIOU, P.

PAPADOPOULOS, V. PARK, A. QAYYUM INTERNET MANET ENCAPSULATION PROTOCOL (IMEP)

SPECIFICATION, Internet Draft http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-manet-imep-spec 

W2LAN (Wireless to LAN Protocol) – W2LAN: protocol that transforms a 802.11 mobile Ad hoc network

(MANET) into an Ethernet LAN, CIIT2004, International Conference on Communications, Internet &

Information Technology, pp. 317–320, ISBN 0-88986-445-4.

An ad hoc wireless network, or simply an ad hoc network, consists of a collection of geographically distributed nodes that communicate with one other over a wireless medium. An ad hoc network differs from cellular networks in that there is no wired infrastructure and the communication capabilities of the network are limited by the battery power of the

network nodes. One of the original motivations for ad hoc networks is found in military applications. A classic example of ad hoc networking is network of war fighters and their mobile platforms in battlefields. Indeed, a wealth of early research in the area involved the development of packet-radio networks (PRNs) and survivable radio networks [16]. While military applications still dominate the research needs in ad hoc networking, the recent rapid advent of mobile telephony and plethora of personal digital assistants has brought to the fore a number of potential commercial applications of ad hoc networks. Examples are disaster relief, conferencing, home networking, sensor networks, personal area networks, and embedded computing applications [37].The lack of a fixed infrastructure in ad hoc networks implies that any computation on the network needs to be carried out in a decentralized manner. Thus, many of the important problems in ad hoc networking can be formulated as problems in distributed computing. However, there are certain characteristics of ad hoc networks that makes this study somewhat different than traditional work in distributed computing. In this article, we review some of the characteristic features of ad hoc networks, formulate problems and survey research work done in the area. We focus on two basic problem domains: topology control, the problem of computing and maintaining a connected topology among the network nodes, and routing. This article is not intended to be a comprehensive survey on ad hoc networking. The choice of the problems discussed in this article are somewhat biased by the research interests of the author.The remainder of this article is organized as follows. In Section 2, we describe various aspects relevant to modeling ad hoc networks. In Section 3, we discuss topology control. Since the nodes of an ad hoc network are often associated with points in 2-dimensional space, topology control is closely tied to computational geometry; we will briefly review this relationship and extant work in the area. In Section 4, we discuss routing protocols for ad hoc networks. After a brief overview of the many protocols that have been proposed, we discuss alternative approaches based on the adversarial network model.

SECURE AD-HOC NETWORK ROUTING

Several routing protocols have been proposed for routing in ad hoc networks; however, until recently, security in such networks has not yet enjoyed much attention from the research community. As a result, ad hoc network routing protocols that assume a trusted environment are highly vulnerable to attack; for example using the wormhole or rushing attacks, an adversary can paralyze ad hoc networks. Based on efficient cryptographic constructions, we designed secure routing protocols that are robust to attack: Ariadne, SEAD, and RAP.

SURVEY ARTICLE ABOUT SECURE AD HOC NETWORK ROUTING PROTOCOLS

In this article we present an overview of the existing work in securing ad hoc network routing. We first review attacks on ad hoc networks and discuss current approaches for establishing cryptographic keys in ad hoc networks. We then present the current state of research in secure ad hoc routing protocols, and conclude with research challenges.

PAPERS

Hu, Yih-Chun, and Adrian Perrig. Survey of Secure Wireless Ad Hoc Routing." InIEEE Security & Privacyspecial issue on Making Wireless Work, 2(3):28-39, May/June 2004. [ PDF

THE ARIADNE SECURE AD-HOC NETWORK ROUTING PROTOCOL

In this research project, we present attacks against routing in ad hoc networks, and we present the design and performance evaluation of a new secure on-demand ad hoc network routing protocol, called Ariadne. Ariadne prevents attackers or compromised nodes from tampering with uncompromised routes consisting of uncompromised nodes, and also prevents many types of Denial-of-Service attacks.  

PAPERS

Hu, Yih-Chun, Adrian Perrig, and Dave Johnson. "Ariadne: A Secure On-Demand Routing Protocol for Ad Hoc Networks." InWireless Networks Journal, 11(1), 2005.[ PDF ]

Hu, Yih-Chun, Adrian Perrig, and Dave Johnson. "Ariadne: A Secure On-Demand Routing Protocol for Ad Hoc Networks." InProceedings of the Eighth Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (ACM Mobicom), Atlanta, Georgia, September 23 - 28, 2002. [ PDF ]

THE SEAD SECURE AD-HOC NETWORK ROUTING PROTOCOL

Although many previous ad hoc network routing protocols have been based in part on distance vector approaches, they have generally assumed a trusted environment. In this research project, we design and evaluate the Secure Efficient Ad hoc Distance vector routing protocol (SEAD), a secure ad hoc network routing protocol based on the design of the Destination-Sequenced Distance-Vector routing protocol (DSDV). In order to support use with nodes of limited CPU processing capability, and

 PAPERS

Hu, Yih-Chun, Dave Johnson, and Adrian Perrig. "SEAD: Secure Efficient Distance Vector Routing for Mobile Wireless Ad Hoc Networks." In Ad Hoc Networks Journal, 1(1):175-192, 2003. [ PDF ]

Hu, Yih-Chun, Dave Johnson, and

to guard against Denial-of-Service (DoS) attacks in which an attacker attempts to cause other nodes to consume excess network bandwidth or processing time, we use efficient one-way hash functions and do not use asymmetric cryptographic operations in the protocol. SEAD performs well over the range of scenarios we tested, and is robust against multiple uncoordinated attackers creating incorrect routing state in any other node, even in spite of any active attackers or compromised nodes in the network.

Adrian Perrig. "SEAD: Secure Efficient Distance Vector Routing for Mobile Wireless Ad Hoc Networks." In Proceedings of the IEEE Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications (WMCSA)June 2002.[ PDF ]

THE RAP SECURE AD-HOC NETWORK ROUTING PROTOCOL

Many proposed routing protocols for ad hoc networks operate in an on-demand fashion, as on-demand routing protocols have been shown to often have lower overhead and faster reaction time than other types of routing based on periodic (proactive) mechanisms. Significant attention recently has been devoted to developing secure routing protocols for ad hoc networks, including a number of secure on-demand routing protocols, that defend against a variety of possible attacks on network routing. In this research project, we present the rushing attack, a new attack that results in denial-of-service when used against all previous on-demand ad hoc network routing protocols. For example, DSR, AODV, and secure protocols based on them, such as Ariadne, ARAN, and SAODV, are unable to discover routes longer than two hops when subject to this attack. This attack is also particularly damaging because it can be performed by a relatively weak attacker. We analyze why previous protocols fail under this attack. We then develop Rushing Attack Prevention (RAP), a generic defense against the rushing attack for on-demand protocols. RAP incurs no cost unless the underlying protocol fails to find a working route, and it provides provable security properties even against the strongest rushing attackers.

PAPERS

Hu, Yih-Chun, Adrian Perrig, and Dave Johnson. "Rushing Attacks and Defense in Wireless Ad Hoc Network Routing Protocols." In Proceedings of the ACM Workshop on Wireless Security (WiSe)San Diego, California, September 2003.[ PDF ]

GENERAL MECHANISMS TO SECURE ROUTING PROTOCOLS.

In this paper, we present four new mechanisms as tools for securing distance vector and path vector routing protocols. For securing distance vector protocols, our hash tree chain mechanism forces a router to increase the distance (metric) when forwarding a routing table entry. To provide authentication of a received routing update in bounded time, we present a new mechanism, similar to hash chains, that we call tree-authenticated one-way chains. For cases in which the maximum metric is large, we present skipchains, which provides more efficient initial computation cost and more efficient element verification; this mechanism is based on a new cryptographic mechanism, called MW-chains, which we also present. For securing path vector protocols, our cumulative authentication mechanism authenticates the list of routers on the path in a routing update, preventing removal or reordering of the router addresses in the list; the mechanism uses only a single

authenticator in the routing update rather than one per router address. We also present a simple mechanism to securely switch one-way chains, by authenticating the next one-way chain using the previous one. These mechanisms are all based on efficient symmetric cryptographic techniques and can be used as building blocks for securing routing protocol

ZRP:-

This document describes the Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP) framework, a hybrid routing framework suitable for a wide variety of mobile ad-hoc networks, especially those with large network spans and diverse mobility patterns. Each node proactively maintains routes within a local region (referred to as the routing zone). Knowledge of the routing zone topology is leveraged by the ZRP to improve the efficiency of a globally reactive route query/reply mechanism. The proactive maintenance of routing zones also helps improve the quality of discovered routes, by making them more robust to changes in network topology. The ZRP can be configured for a particular network by proper selection of a single parameter, the routing zone radius.

PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF ADHOC NETWORK ROUTING PROTOCOLS

 P. Chenna Reddy 1       Dr. P. Chandrasekhar Reddy 2

 1 Computer Science and Engineering, JNTU College of Engg, Anantapur -

515002, Andhra Pradesh, INDIA, [email protected] Electronics and Communication Engineering, JNTU College of Engg,

Anantapur - 515002, Andhra Pradesh, INDIA, [email protected]   Abstract Routing in adhoc networks is nontrivial due to highly dynamic environment. In recent years several routing protocols targeted at mobile adhoc networks are being proposed and prominent among them are DSDV, AODV, TORA, and DSR. This paper does the comprehensive analysis of routing protocols using ns2 simulator. All protocols are provided with identical traffic load and mobility patterns. We have considered TCP as transport protocol and FTP as traffic generator. Results indicate that the performance of proactive routing protocol DSDV is far better than remaining protocols for TCP based traffic. DSR which uses source routing is the best among reactive routing protocols. The analysis is significant because we considered all the metrics as suggested by RFC 2501 and till to-date there are a few comparisons based on TCP. I. Introduction An adhoc network is a collection of nodes forming a temporary network with out the aid of any additional infrastructure and no centralized control. The nodes in an adhoc network [1] can be a laptop, PDA, or any other device capable of transmitting and receiving information. Nodes act both as an end system (transmitting and receiving data) and as a router (allowing traffic to pass through) resulting in multihop routing.   Network is temporary as nodes are generally mobile and may go out of range of other nodes in the network. Routing in an adhoc network is nontrivial as they posses few characteristics [2] which make them different from wired networks. They are as follows:

High probability of errors due to various transmission impairments Low Transmission range to conserve energy Frequent link breakages due to mobility Sleep period of operation of nodes and unidirectional links

Unfavourable environmental conditions by virtue of applications of adhoc networks

Looping problem due to mobility No proper Addressing scheme

 Routing in adhoc networks [3] started with the two most successful routing algorithms of wired networks: Distance Vector and Link State. Compared to Link state method, Distance vector is computationally more efficient, easier to implement and requires much less storage space. However, it is well known that this algorithm can cause the formation of both short-lived and long-lived loops (Count-to-Infinity). Almost all proposed modifications to this algorithm eliminate the looping problem by forcing all nodes in the network to participate in some form of inter nodal coordination protocol. Such inter nodal coordination mechanisms might be effective when topological changes are rare. However, within an adhoc mobile environment enforcing any such inter nodal coordination mechanism will be difficult due to rapidly changing topology. Furthermore, the techniques split horizon and poisoned reverse are not useful within the wireless environment due to the broadcast nature of the transmission medium. Link state algorithms are free of Count-to-infinity problem. However, they need to maintain the up-to-date version of the entire network topology at every node, which may constitute excessive storage and communication overhead in a highly dynamic network. Besides, Link-state algorithms proposed or implemented to-date does not eliminate the creation of temporary routing loops. Some of the link costs in a node’s view can be incorrect because of long propagation delays, partitioned network, etc. Such inconsistent views of network topologies might lead to formation of routing loops. These loops, however, are short lived because they disappear in the time it takes a message to traverse the diameter of the network. Wired networks are usually explicitly configured to have a link connecting two nodes, but there are no explicit links in adhoc network, and all communication is by broadcast transmission. The redundant paths in a wireless environment unnecessarily increase the size of routing updates that must be sent over the network, and increase the CPU overhead required to process each update and to compute new routes.    This paper is not first to provide a quantitative analysis of routing protocols for adhoc networks. But all these papers [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] did the comparison considering only few characteristics that should be possessed by routing protocols and all consider UDP as transport protocol. This paper is

comprehensive study and considers all the characteristics as suggested by RFC 2501. II. Routing Protocols overview A. DSDV Destination Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV) [9] is a Proactive routing protocol that solves the major problem associated with the Distance Vector routing of wired networks i.e., Count-to-infinity, by using Destination sequence numbers. Destination sequence number is the sequence number as originally stamped by the destination. The DSDV protocol requires each mobile station to advertise, to each of its current neighbours, its own routing table (for instance, by broadcasting its entries). The entries in this list may change fairly dynamically over time, so the advertisement must be made often enough to ensure that every mobile computer can almost always locate every other mobile computer. In addition, each mobile computer agrees to relay data packets to other computers upon request. At all instants, the DSDV protocol guarantees loop-free paths to each destination. Routes with more recent sequence numbers are always preferred as the basis for making forwarding decisions, but not necessarily advertised. Of the paths with the same sequence number, those with the smallest metric will be used. The routing updates are sent in two ways: a “full dump” or incremental update. A full dump sends the full routing table to the neighbours and could span many packets whereas, in an incremental update only those entries from the routing table are sent that has a metric change since the last update and it must fit in a packet. When the network is relatively stable, incremental updates are sent to avoid extra traffic and full dump are relatively infrequent. In a fast changing network, incremental packets can grow big, so full dumps will be more frequent. The updates can be time triggered (periodic) or event triggered. When any new or substantially modified route information is received by a Mobile Host, the new information will be retransmitted soon (subject to constraints imposed for damping route fluctuations). When a stabilized route shows a different metric for some destination that would likely constitute a significant change that needed to be advertised after stabilization. If a new sequence number for a route is received, but the metric stays the same, that would be unlikely to be considered as a significant change. Newly recorded routes are scheduled for

immediate advertisement to the current Mobile Host’s neighbours. Routes which show an improved metric are scheduled for advertisement at a time which depends on the average settling time for routes to the particular destination under consideration. A broken link is described by a metric of infinity (i.e., any value greater than the maximum allowed metric). When a link to a next hop has broken, any route through that next hop is immediately assigned infinity metric and assigned an updated sequence number. Since this qualifies as a substantial route change, such modified routes are immediately disclosed in a broadcast routing information packet. B. DSR Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) [10] is a reactive protocol i.e. it doesn’t use periodic advertisements. It computes the routes when necessary and then maintains them. Source routing is a routing technique in which the sender of a packet determines the complete sequence of nodes through which the packet has to pass; the sender explicitly lists this route in the packet’s header, identifying each forwarding “hop” by the address of the next node to which to transmit the packet on its way to the destination host. There are two significant stages in working of DSR: Route Discovery and Route Maintenance. A host initiating a route discovery broadcasts a route request packet which may be received by those hosts within wireless transmission range of it. The route request packet identifies the host, referred to as the target of the route discovery, for which the route is requested. If the route discovery is successful the initiating host receives a route reply packet listing a sequence of network hops through which it may reach the target. In addition to the address of the original initiator of the request and the target of the request, each route request packet contains a route record, in which is accumulated a record of the sequence of hops taken by the route request packet as it is propagated through the network during this route discovery. While a host is using any source route, it monitors the continued correct operation of that route. This monitoring of the correct operation of a route in use is called route maintenance. When route maintenance detects a problem with a route in use, route discovery may be used again to discover a new, correct route to the destination. 

To optimize route discovery process, DSR uses cache memory efficiently. Suppose a host receives a route request packet for which it is not the target and is not already listed in the route record in the packet, and for which the pair (initiator address, request id) is not found in its list of recently seen requests; if the host has a route cache entry for the target of the request, it may append this cached route to the accumulated route record in the packet, and may return this route in a route reply packet to the initiator without propagating (re-broadcasting) the route request. The delay for route discovery and the total number of packets transmitted can be reduced by allowing data to be piggybacked on route request packets. DSR uses no periodic routing advertisement messages, thereby reducing network bandwidth overhead, particularly during periods when little or no significant host movement is taking place. DSR has a unique advantage by virtue of source routing. As the route is part of the packet itself, routing loops, either short-lived or long-lived, cannot be formed as they can be immediately detected and eliminated. C. AODV Adhoc On-demand Distance Vector (AODV) [11] is essentially a combination of both DSR and DSDV. It borrows the basic on-demand mechanism of Route Discovery and Route Maintenance from DSR, plus the use of hop-by-hop routing, sequence numbers, and periodic beacons from DSDV. It uses destination sequence numbers to ensure loop freedom at all times and by avoiding the Bellman-Ford ”count-to-infinity” problem offers quick convergence when the ad hoc network topology changes Route Requests (RREQs), Route Replies (RREPs), and Route Errors (RERRs) are the message types defined by AODV. These message types are received via UDP, and normal IP header processing applies.    As long as the endpoints of a communication connection have valid routes to each other, AODV does not play any role. When a route to a new destination is needed, the node broadcasts a RREQ to find a route to the destination. A route can be determined when the RREQ reaches either the destination itself, or an intermediate node with a 'fresh enough' route to the destination.  A 'fresh enough' route is a valid route entry for the destination whose associated sequence number is at least as great as that contained in the RREQ. The route is made available by unicasting a RREP back to the origination of the RREQ. Each node receiving the request caches a route back to the originator

of the request, so that the RREP can be unicast from the destination along a path to that originator, or likewise from any intermediate node that is able to satisfy the request. If intermediate nodes reply to every transmission of a given RREQ, the destination does not receive any copies of it. In this situation, the destination does not learn of a route to the originating node. This could cause the destination to initiate a route discovery (for example, if the originator is attempting to establish a TCP session). In order that the destinations learn of routes to the originating node, the originating node SHOULD set the “gratuitous RREP” ('G') flag in the RREQ if for any reason the destination is likely to need a route to the originating node. If in response to a RREQ with the 'G' flag set, an intermediate node returns a RREP, it MUST also unicast a gratuitous RREP to the destination node. Nodes monitor the link status of next hops in active routes. In order to maintain routes, AODV normally requires that each node periodically transmit a HELLO message, with a default rate of once per every second. Failure to receive three consecutive HELLO messages from a neighbour is taken as an indication that the link to the neighbour in question is down. When a link break in an active route is detected, a RERR message is used to notify other nodes that the loss of that link has occurred. The RERR message indicates those destinations which are now unreachable due to the loss of the link. In order to enable this reporting mechanism, each node keeps a “precursor list”, containing the IP address for each of its neighbours that are likely to use it as a next hop towards the destination that is now unreachable.    D. TORA The Temporally-Ordered Routing Algorithm (TORA) [12] is an adaptive routing protocol for multihop networks that possesses the following attributes:

Distributed execution Multipath routing The protocol can simultaneously support both source-initiated, on-demand

routing for some destinations and destination-initiated, proactive routing for other destinations.

Minimization of communication overhead via localization of algorithmic reaction to topological changes.

TORA is distributed, in that routers need only maintain information about adjacent routers (i.e., one-hop knowledge). Like a distance-vector routing approach, TORA maintains state on a per-destination basis. However, TORA does not continuously execute a shortest-path computation and thus the metric used to establish the routing structure does not represent a distance. The destination-oriented nature of the routing structure in TORA supports a mix of reactive and proactive routing on a per-destination basis. During reactive operation, sources initiate the establishment of routes to a given destination on-demand. This mode of operation may be advantageous in dynamic networks with relatively sparse traffic patterns, since it may not be necessary (or desirable) to maintain routes between every source/destination pair at all times. At the same time, selected destinations can initiate proactive operation, resembling traditional table-driven routing approaches. This allows routes to be proactively maintained to destinations for which routing is consistently or frequently required (e.g., servers or gateways to hardwired infrastructure). TORA is designed to minimize the communication overhead associated with adapting to network topological changes. The scope of TORA's control messaging is typically localized to a very small set of nodes near a topological change. The design and flexibility of TORA allow its operation to be biased towards high reactivity (i.e., low time complexity) and bandwidth conservation (i.e., low communication complexity) rather than routing optimality--making it potentially well-suited for use in dynamic wireless networks. A logically separate version of TORA is run for each "destination" to which routing is required. TORA assigns directions to the links between routers to form a routing structure that is used to forward datagram’s to the destination. A router assigns a direction ("upstream" or "downstream") to the link with a neighbouring router based on the relative values of a metric associated with each router. The metric maintained by a router can conceptually be thought of as the router's "height" (i.e., links are directed from the higher router to the lower router). The significance of the heights and the link directional assignments is that a router may only forward datagram’s downstream. Links from a router to any neighbouring routers with an unknown or undefined height are considered undirected and cannot be used for forwarding. Collectively, the heights of the routers and the link directional assignments form a loop-free, multipath routing structure in which all directed paths lead downstream to the destination. 

The TORA link reversal process creates short-lived routing loops that exist from the time that the link-reversal starts until the time that all nodes that need to be aware of the reversal receive the corresponding update. Delaying the transmission of TORA routing messages for aggregation, coupled with any queuing delay at the network interface, allows these routing loops to last long enough that significant numbers of data packets are dropped.  III. Simulation Our protocol evaluations are based on the simulation using ns2 [13] and the graphs are generated using X-graph. NS2 is a discrete event simulator developed by the University of California atBerkeley and the VINT project. NS2 supports two languages, system programming language C++ for detail implementation and scripting language TCL for configuring and experimenting with the different parameters quickly. NS2 has all the essential features like abstraction, visualization, emulation, and traffic & scenario generation.  X-graph draws a graph on a display with data given either from data files or standard input. It can display up to 64 independent data sets using different colours and line styles for each set. Simulation environment consists of 50 wireless nodes forming an ad hoc network, moving about over a 670 X 670 flat space for 200 seconds of simulated time. The physical radio characteristics of each mobile node’s network interface, such as the antenna gain, transmit power, and receiver sensitivity, were chosen to approximate the Lucent WaveLAN direct sequence spread spectrum radio. In order to enable direct, fair comparisons between the protocols, it was critical to challenge the protocols with identical loads and environmental conditions. Each run of the simulator accepts as input a scenario file that describes the exact motion of each node and the exact sequence of packets originated by each node, together with the exact time at which each change in motion or packet origination is to occur. We pre-generated 45 different scenario files with varying movement patterns and traffic loads (FTP), and then ran all four routing protocols against each of these scenario files. Since each protocol was challenged in an identical fashion, we can directly compare the performance results of the four protocols. A. Movement Model 

Nodes in the simulation move according to a model that we call the “random waypoint” model. The movement scenario files we used for each simulation are characterized by a pause time. Each node begins the simulation by remaining stationary for pause time seconds. It then selects a random destination in the 670 X 670m space and moves to that destination at a speed distributed uniformly between 0 and some maximum speed. Upon reaching the destination, the node pauses again for pause time seconds, selects another destination, and proceeds there as previously described, repeating this behaviour for the duration of the simulation. Each simulation ran for 200 seconds of simulated time. We ran our simulations with movement patterns generated for 9 different pause times: 0, 5, 10, 20, 30, 50, 100, 150, 200 seconds and 5 different speeds: 2, 5, 10, 15, and 20. A pause time of 0 seconds corresponds to continuous motion, and a pause time of 200 (the length of the simulation) corresponds to no motion. B. Metrics In comparing the protocols, we chose to evaluate them according to the following metrics: Throughput: It is defined as total number of packets received by the destination. It is a measure of effectiveness of a routing protocol. Finally what matters is the number of packets delivered successfully. Packet delivery ratio: the ratio between the number of packets received by the TCP sink at the final destination and the number of packets originated by the “application layer” sources. It is a measure of efficiency of the protocol. Routing overhead: The total number of routing packets transmitted during the simulation. For packets sent over multiple hops, each transmission of the packet (each hop) counts as one transmission. Since End-to-end Network Throughput (data routing performance) is defined as the external measure of effectiveness, efficiency is considered to be the internal measure. To achieve a given level of data routing performance, two different protocols can use differing amounts of overhead, depending on their internal efficiency, and thus protocol efficiency may or may not directly affect data routing performance. If control and data traffic share the same channel, and the channels capacity is limited, then excessive control traffic often impacts data routing performance. 

Path optimality: The difference between the number of hops a packet took to reach its destination and the length of the shortest path that physically existed through the network when the packet was originated. Packets lost: it is a measure of the number of packets dropped by the routers due to various reasons. The reasons we have considered for evaluation are Collisions, time outs, looping, errors. Average Delay: It is a metric which is very significant with multimedia and real-time traffic. It is very important for any application where data is processed online. C. Simulation results 

Figure 1: Total number of packets received at various levels of mobility 

Figure 2: Ratio of packets delivered/Packets transmitted at different levels of mobility 

Figure 3: Delay introduced by routing protocols with variation in mobility 

 Figure 4: Variation of Routing overhead with mobility 

 Figure 5: Total number of packets dropped with variation in mobility

 Figure 6: Percentage difference between forwarded path and optimal path with mobility 

Figure 7: Total number of packets received at various levels of speed 

Figure 8: Ratio of packets delivered/Packets transmitted at different speeds 

Figure 9: Delay introduced by routing protocols with variation in speed

Figure 10: Total number of packets dropped with variation in speed 

 Figure 11: Variation of Routing overhead with speed

Figure 12: Percentage difference between forwarded path and optimal path Vs speed  The simulation results bring out some important characteristic differences between the routing protocols. Though proactive protocols are intrinsically not suitable for any mobile network because they involve periodic exchange of information resulting in consumption of energy of battery operated nodes; they are capable of maintaining a connection which is required for TCP traffic. From the Fig.1 it can be inferred that DSDV throughput is far better than other protocols. Since DSR pre-computes the routes before sending the packets its packet delivery ratio is better than other protocols as shown in Fig. 2. TORA’s performance is relatively poor when throughput and packet delivery ratio are considered as metrics. Since DSDV is a proactive routing protocol in most of the cases it uses already established route and tries to get rid of the packets immediately resulting in low average delay. DSR requires complete route at the source itself before transferring the packet and since it is reactive routing protocol significant delay is introduced before transferring the packet. AODV also introduces low delays when compared to DSR and TORA. All this can be inferred from Fig. 3. Routing overhead of all the protocols DSDV, AODV and DSR is significantly low as indicated in the Fig. 4. TORA drops few packets but its throughput is very low. DSDV is better than other two protocols in dropping packets as indicated in Fig. 5. DSDV uses the

optimal path in more than 90% of the cases and the difference between optimal path and the forwarded path is negligible. Other protocols fail to use the optimal path and the difference between optimal path and forwarded path is more than 3 hops which can be determined from Fig. 6. The impact of mobility on all the protocols is surprisingly not significant. The variation of performance of all the protocols with speed is similar to the variation in performance with mobility as shown in Fig. 7-12. DSDV performs better than all the remaining protocols. The impact of speed on DSR is significant. Similar is the case with TORA. IV. Conclusion This paper does the realistic comparison of four routing protocols DSDV, AODV, TORA and DSR.  The significant observation is, simulation results agree with expected results based on theoretical analysis. As expected, proactive routing protocol DSDV performance is best considering its ability to maintain connection by periodic exchange of information, which is required for TCP, based traffic.  Results are only valid when we consider TCP traffic and TCP is not appropriate transport protocol for highly mobile multihop networks and UDP is preferred. For UDP traffic performance of reactive routing protocols is better than proactive routing protocols.